Look—taking away the ability to play used games will always generate some outcry. And so far, consumers have treated the idea of a video game console blocking pre-owned discs as shots fired. For many gamers, it's a consumer-hostile idea forced on the industry by greedy publishers and console makers. Even the faintestrumors stating that the next Xbox or PlayStation will block used games is enough to generate hundreds of angry comments on Internet forums. They pledge blanket boycotts and argue that the big corporations are shooting themselves in the foot.

This could well be true. But it's possible to imagine a world in which the powers-that-be use the elimination of the second-hand market as the impetus to shake up the way console gaming retail works. This change could potentially spark benefits for consumers and game makers. (Or at the very least, there's a way to make this bitter pill easier to swallow.)

It starts with pricing. This is the big elephant in the room when it comes to used console games. Not only does the used game market ensure you can find a game for less than the original retail price soon after release, but it also means you can get a decent proportion of the purchase price back when you've finished a game (or if you just plain don't like it). One of the main reasons digital distribution systems like Steam get away with removing the players' ability to resell their games is that they often lower prices on games to a ridiculous degree in frequent sales.

On a theoretical system that blocks used game sales, there's absolutely nothing stopping publishers, system makers, and retailers from continuing to charge the now-standard $60 price for a major, first-run title. You could argue, though, that it's in their interests (and in consumers' interests) to be more flexible.

Imagine this: it's E3 2013 and Microsoft comes out to its press conference. Confirmed news has already leaked that Microsoft's next system won't play used games, so the company downplays this fact at the big press unveiling. But Microsoft also makes another startling announcement: every first party game released for the system will have a maximum retail price of $40 from day one. While Microsoft can't directly control the pricing plans of third-party publishers, the major studios quickly follow suit to stay competitive with the offerings from Microsoft Game Studios.

Such a price reduction would obviously require publishers and console makers to take a hit on their per-unit margins for each game sold. Working off this chart of how a $60 game sale gets divided up, let's say we took off $4 from the platform fee and $16 from the publisher's take. Microsoft is now making $3 per game sale, rather than $7, while the publisher is making $11 rather than $27 (retailers don't take a hit here, as they already lose out on high-margin used game sales).

It might seem self-defeating for publishers and console makers to give up such a large chunk of their per-unit revenues, but remember what they're getting in return: no more used game sales. Those used games give both the publisher and the platform holder exactly zero dollars per sale, and they make up a significant chunk of all money spent on console games. In a world without used games, the publisher and developer are getting a cut of every sale.

Of course, some of those used purchasers will simply skip the game altogether if they can't buy it pre-owned, especially if the decision-makers decide to keep prices locked at $60. But a lower "new" price point would likely convince many more to buy a game they might have ignored at $60. In essence, the publisher and console maker would be getting a smaller per-unit cut of more overall sales, and the customer would be getting a lower price on newly launched games. Everyone wins. Well, except resellers like Gamestop. But with the increasing threat of downloadable games, those retailers are quickly losing their leverage to begin with.

To make this kind of system work, the relevant parties have to pay attention and release their grip on how retailers price games in the long term. Right now, a system of retail price maintenance schemes pretty much guarantees that a new game will be sold for the same price at practically every retailer until it's allowed to go on clearance far in the future. Usually, the used game market acts as a price discrimination release valve here, letting the price of resold games float with supply and demand. Without a used games market, though, freezing games at their initial asking price would likely just cause older games to wither on store shelves.

But there's another option. What if Microsoft, for instance, started relaxing its minimum advertised price requirements a few months after a new game came out, allowing any retailer to advertise and sell the game at any price they wanted without penalty. The bulk of these post-launch reductions would come out of the retailer's $15 margin, but there could also be a sliding scale so that games sold at lower prices would also bring in a little less in publisher and platform licensing fees. (Again, they'd still be getting more than the $0 they would have received from used game sales).

Some games would likely stay at their initial price for a long time as retailers struggle to keep them on the shelves long after their release (remember, there's no used games to eat up a lot of the demand for new titles). For most games, though, sales drop off quickly after the first few months, and retailers might be happy to take a slightly smaller margin just to generate a higher sales volume. Steam-style sales for the downloadable versions of games could force retailers to lower prices on legacy games just to compete.

The specific numbers I'm discussing here are just back-of-the-envelope math, and it might take some experimentation to figure out how to maximize profits and minimize prices for different games. The overall point, though, is that allowing new game prices to float a bit in a world without used games could benefit not only consumers but also game and console makers now taking a cut of every sale.

Will any of this happen? Probably not. A major change in pricing and sales strategy is an incredibly risky move, and the big corporations are generally pretty risk averse. There are many institutional forces suggesting the status quo would continue, and that prices for major games would generally stay at $60 even if used game sales become a thing of the past (and even if that's no longer the profit-maximizing point for those games).

But some innovative pricing strategies could really lead to more profits for publishers and console makers as well as generally lower prices for consumers. Those positives come all while squeezing out the retail middle-men, increasingly being made irrelevant by digital distribution anyway. Realistic or not, let me dream of a world in which a lack of used games actually revitalizes the retail market instead of strangling it.

Promoted Comments

There's a simple solution: monetize the used game market for console manufacturers and game publishers. Have a unique ID per game. To use the game, you must pay a modest (let's say $1 to $5, perhaps sliding depending on the age of the title) fee to enable it. The console company gets some money for providing the online infrastructure, achievement tracking, etc., while the publisher gets something for the additional sale. I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think that would run counter to first-sale doctrines, and I think, depending on how you spin it, any reasonable person would mind supporting the game companies for their work. And hey, if they want to make Xbox Live Gold or PSN Plus (whatever it's called - I'm an Xbox guy) more attractive, include a certain number of used title unlocks with subscription.

For a moment, forget about the moral issues and the "what-if?" scenarios. It comes down to basic economics.

The huge potential supply of used games means that games are largely a buyer's market. The prices reflect the minimum that someone can sell or re-sell it for and still make money. Publishers and re-sellers compete for market share (e.g. CoD isn't $100 because someone will have a used copy that they'll give be on ebay for $40).

Eliminating used games means that games are purely a sellers market, controlled entirely by the publisher. The prices will reflect the maximum that people will pay. Prices will only be kept low by competition between publishers (e.g CoD won't be $100 because people might play other games instead).

I expect there will be steam-style sales, and other measures to improve sales through price differentiation. But this will not (on aggregate) match the existing price-reducing effect of used games. We might get lucky in the short term, since publishers may take the long view and discount the prices to ensure that we accept this new retail model.

It's great for publishers and probably great for developers, who get more money. It's not good for consumers, who will pay more.

Tiered pricing is definitely a good idea if used games are to be blocked, but I'm really tired of the outrage over this. There is nothing new here. Steam, Origin, Amazon, and other digital PC games retail customers have never been able to trade in or sell their games, and the world hasn't ended, the industry hasn't collapsed.

I'll bet that many if not most of the people who say "I'm angry and I'll never go in for this evil plan!" will be eating crow and lining up to buy their shiny new used-content-restricted consoles the moment the first Call of Duty and Madden games are released for it.

What will get really... interesting... is the fight between Microsoft and the other players in the production and distribution chain over slices of the pie.(Obviously, this is speculation based on available leaks, so it could change if the available data do)

With something like Sony's RFID-in-the-CD patent, you can 'lock' a disk to the first console that plays it reasonably easily, and you can issue specially 'blessed' disks that have other properties(you might, for example, sell a version that never locks to Blockbuster, who would then be contractually obligated to give you a cut of the rental money). However, you are very limited in the granularity of what you can do. You can bake rules into the disk at manufacture, and modify a few parameters in the field; but that's about it.

With Microsoft's rumored 'always-connected' requirement, though, you have almost unlimited granularity: So long as every disk has some sort of identifier(just a serial number or the like, which is already common for optical disks), you can have the console phone home the serial number and ask for further orders each and every time a disk is shoved into the drive.

Want to block all resale? Can do. Want to allow resale; but charge X 'Microsoft Points' to 'unlock' a used disk? Can do. Want to release a block of 'Family Edition' disks whose serial numbers will be authorized on the first five consoles they are played on, rather than only the first console? No problem. Want to offer a 'hybrid rental' model where the customer buys the disk for $5 at the store; but has to pay $55 to keep playing it for more than 24 hours after it is first inserted? You got it.

Given that Microsoft already has a billing infrastructure and user accounts, and each console and disk will have a unique ID, they are in a very strong position to muscle most functions that used to be controlled by possession of the physical disk out of the picture in favor of functions controlled by their servers(and billed for their benefit). Bandwidth isn't really good enough to fully cut physical disks out of the picture; but a BD-ROM costs peanuts compared to the 'IP' burned on to it. If access control is moved to the console(which has billing powers), it becomes possible to value shiny disks at little more than postage and pressing costs, and define(and redefine) the prices and terms of access to those disks at any time just by making a few changes on the server end.<br><br>

We know that retails aren't so hot on download-based distribution; but 'trusted client'+internet connection+ disk GUIDs gives the entity in control of the client virtually the same degree of power over the retailer as a full download-only architecture does.

The problem I have with all of this is my reason of buying used games is generally to revisit years old games that I never checked out. Where this becomes a problem is most major retailers certainly won't be carrying it, since their stock is prioritized for more recent releases. That leaves the internet and Gamestop. If neither of these are an option, where do I try to find this older game? From the company that publishes it? Can I be certain they will continue to offer it, and if not how would I manage to get ahold of it? What if it didn't sell great and the copies made were very limited, do we just accept that everyone who bought it during it's run will continue to be the sole owners, even if the game is collecting dust somewhere?

To me, these are all valid and important concerns regarding why the elimination of used games just can't work. It's not always about getting newer games at a discount, sometimes it's going back to older releases to flesh out your collection and take more chances on games that maybe didn't get a lot of attention. Without used games, I never would have found many of the games I have now that became rare and hard t find, and are important games in my collection.

I learned a lot of stuff in micro and macroeconomics in college about how economic systems are supposed to work. Much of it is counterintuitive--like, economics says that if someone were to invent an awesome electric car, common sense tells us that oil companies or car manufacturers or both would want to see the technology buried because it potentially threatens their business models. However, the "best" action as dictated by economics would be for an oil company's to buy up the tech and then sell it for what it's worth and make bajillions of dollars.

In this case, I don't think any game publisher in the universe would accept a lower purchase price for games. They simply don't have to. Even if it can be definitively proven that they'd take more dollars out of the consumer by accepting a lower margin, they won't do it. It's a potential risk, and it also potentially damages the brand image of their AAA franchises. "Sell a Call of Honor or Medal of Duty game for $40 new?! People will think the brand is worthless!" (We've heard this bullshit elsewhere before, too).

People are dumb. People aren't perfect economic actors. Arguments about the "correct" things to do don't seem to matter when dealing with companies narrowly focused on the next quarter's revenue.

If a console blocks used games, then lower prices are important, but equally important every game needs to be available for download, at the same price as a disc copy, forever. Disabling used copies means it's impossible to play an out-of-print game, so use digital downloads to make sure games never go out of print.

In fact, anybody who buys a disc copy should be able to download a digital version of the game too - I mean, there's no danger of keeping the download and giving away the physical copy if the disc is locked to my account, right? Let's have maximum convenience, then.

85 posts | registered Jul 25, 2012

Kyle Orland
Kyle is the Senior Gaming Editor at Ars Technica, specializing in video game hardware and software. He has journalism and computer science degrees from University of Maryland. He is based in the Washington, DC area. Emailkyle.orland@arstechnica.com//Twitter@KyleOrl

218 Reader Comments

This is the only way I would buy a console blocking used sales, and while I hope this is what happens (especially the flexibility on pricing a couple of months after release) I am a little skeptical that they would ever reduce prices for consumers. It will be up to the market to sort this one out; eventually they will realize that people are not willing to buy anything other than the surefire games like Halo of Uncharted knowing they can't get their money back; I just hope this doesn't destroy too many smaller publishers before that happens.

If it's a physical game disc, I should be able to transfer or sell it to whomever I wish without intervention by the console maker or game publisher. There is absolutely no way that I will ever purchase a console that prevents or restricts the ability to play used games, regardless of the prices of the games or the console itself.

There's a simple solution: monetize the used game market for console manufacturers and game publishers. Have a unique ID per game. To use the game, you must pay a modest (let's say $1 to $5, perhaps sliding depending on the age of the title) fee to enable it. The console company gets some money for providing the online infrastructure, achievement tracking, etc., while the publisher gets something for the additional sale. I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think that would run counter to first-sale doctrines, and I think, depending on how you spin it, any reasonable person would mind supporting the game companies for their work. And hey, if they want to make Xbox Live Gold or PSN Plus (whatever it's called - I'm an Xbox guy) more attractive, include a certain number of used title unlocks with subscription.

But couldn't it also go the other way? That publishers, after eliminating the second hand market, and with a surefire big seller like Halo, or COD, decide to up the price of a new copy from $60 to $70 or $80, and this becomes the new average for a AAA title.

And as gijames says, it could hurt smaller publishers. I bought Heavy Rain new, taking a chance on it. I didn't like it so much and traded it in. Had I not had that option, I'd never have bought it in the first place.

Even if you convinced publishers to buy into making less money (fat chance), blocking used games is a zero sum proposition with a zero sum answer: hell no.

Keep in mind that price reductions have long been the recommended course of action to minimize piracy. I don't care too much when I waste $15 (that's going out for lunch, really). If I end up wasting $60 I am irate ($60 is roses and chocolates for the SO).

Some publishers have apparently been paying attention (hi, Valve), but most of them seem to be interested in blithely running off the cliff like Lemmings.

I know this isn't the point of the article, but how does this work? If I want to play at someone elses house can I? What if my system is broken or stolen? There is probably an explanation article somewhere, but I googled it and couldn't find. I think a move in this direction is enough to put an end to video games for me...

Bartering the ability to play used games for other 'perks' is never going to be worth it in the long run. No thank you.

+1

Basically what this article is saying is, it'll be ok if Sony et al buy off consumers by lowering the price at the cost of consumer rights. This is analogous of monopolies undercutting infant competition so as drive them out of business and then jacking up the price again. And make no mistake, any reduction in price will only be temporary and eventually they'll decide to 'double-dip' by charging what they used to anyway. And why wouldn't they? Increased profit margin is what the game is all about isn't it?

It happened to pay tv and it'll happen to this industry as well.

Edit: And before you mention Steam, Steam doesn't discount day 1 games. At least not in my experience. They might do on the occasional weekend or during a holiday season, but then so too do most retailers. Just because their discounts are more common doesn't mean they discount the actual game you want i.e. the game that just got released a week ago. For those who really want a good deal, I suggest you go to g2play.net. Imagine Steam's sales but on steroids. And for new games to boot.

It would be interesting if the publishers were willing to show something to the consumers in exchange for locking out resale value. As it stands, they're taking away any chance we have of getting any money back from our full-price purchase (and with most stores outright refuse refunds on game sales, a bad purchase hurts BAD), so they're basically taking something away from us without giving anything back, not as much as a simple consideration.

Bartering the ability to play used games for other 'perks' is never going to be worth it in the long run. No thank you.

Sure it will.

1. Steam proves it works quite well.2. Used games only exist because a portion of the population can't afford (or are unwilling to pay) retail rates for games. If retail rates for games go down, fewer people need to buy used games. With sales and the like, everyone can maximize their profits and units sold, as those with tight budgets know to wait for game sales, which cuts even more out of the used game market.3. There's nothing in this system that precludes playing games at a friend's house. If games are tied to your account, then going to a friend's and logging in should allow you to bring the disc as well. And thankfully, the console makers have so far made it easy to take your profile with you if you don't want to bother with a login process.

So as it stands, the only real losers here are those that borrow games from a library or a rental service like Gamefly, and gamers that just use those are literally no loss to MS/Sony if they stop playing games.

I still haven't seen anyone point out that ultra cheap used games lead to impulse buys, which can lead to new game purchases based on the experience.

I bought Halo used for almost nothing, liked it, and now I buy each new Halo game at Walmart or Target soon after it is released. Had I not noticed that neat lettering in the used game bin, I probably wouldn't have subsequently bought the next half dozen games.

Bartering the ability to play used games for other 'perks' is never going to be worth it in the long run. No thank you.

I guess I've done that, since I've used Steam since 2006 or so. I'm fine with it, and don't feel "violated', but then again I rarely pay more than $10-15 for a game. Veeery infrequently I'll go as high as $30. But these console people who pay $60?! That's just insane, I'd never ever pay that much!

I'd prefer to leave things as is, where you can sell your old games to anyone freely. However, if they are determined to not allow this, then how about something like a $10 fee to transfer "ownership" of a game. So you can resell your game, but the publisher, console maker, and whoever they want to include can get some profit.

Bartering the ability to play used games for other 'perks' is never going to be worth it in the long run. No thank you.

I guess I've done that, since I've used Steam since 2006 or so. I'm fine with it, and don't feel "violated', but then again I rarely pay more than $10-15 for a game. Veeery infrequently I'll go as high as $30. But these console people who pay $60?! That's just insane, I'd never ever pay that much!

I dunno, sometimes price is personal preference too. I would never pay full price for a Call of Duty game, but I bought Red Dead Redemption on launch day and it was worth every penny IMO.

What if this, what if that, publishers could do this..... yeah I'd like a flying unicorn that breaths fire. Not going to happen though. Unlike the legions of idiots who can't contain themselves and have to buy modern warfare 84 it's rather simple. I won't buy your console, I won't pay $60 for your rehashed shit. You have messed up gaming so much that the indie market is the only place for me and it's the only place to find new games (no cod 5 past warfare is not a game, it's a 60$ skin).

Though I do not partake in the selling of used games, I do know there is a sizeable number of people that use that as a way of reducing the risk of getting stuck with a crappy game. Lowering the initial price point would reduce the pain a bit but it does nothing to address the flexibility that the current system gives people. It still does not address the thing I am most interested in, I like to lend and borrow games from my friends. You can do all the crazy gyrations with price points, it does not address this simple point.

My guess is that Microsoft and Sony are feeling emboldened due to the Vernor v. Autodesk court decision. The argument will be made that you don't actually own the game rather it is being licensed to you. It won't stop someone from raising a lawsuit and challenging this again, it would make an interesting SCOTUS decision since they denied taking a look at Vernor.

The real trouble with this as a consumer is that games would never go below $20, even for crappy also-ran games, ancient games or unpopular games. Which is ridiculous.

My other concern is already happening. With the digital platforms specific to console hardware, what do we do about history and nostalgia in the future? How will future generations play XBLA or PSN games that didn't make it to the PC? The problem only gets worse if the discs themselves don't work without 'phoning home' and they require specific hardware. Though I guess the rumoured x86 hardware will help the next gen in the future. This has already happened I suppose with online Dreamcast titles, but this could be a whole different scale now. There are thousands of games on XBL and PSN.

Kyle, as a journalist you must have travelled on a plane and stayed in a hotel. And when you did, was the beer reasonably priced?

Have you ever known any business with a well established history of screwing over their customers do an incredible about face on pricing when they have a captive customer base? Exceptions to the rule apply, I am sure, but this Op-ed stretches credibility a little too far.

I don't know how well this model would work in the retail space, where you have to deal with the challenges of the retailers needing a cut, and the added cost of producing, storing and moving physical goods. If the next generation systems allow for day one digital distribution of every title this could work. They would effectively be using the used disc block to push everyone digital, so they could employ their own version of the Steam business model, with more flexible prices on digital goods.

For a moment, forget about the moral issues and the "what-if?" scenarios. It comes down to basic economics.

The huge potential supply of used games means that games are largely a buyer's market. The prices reflect the minimum that someone can sell or re-sell it for and still make money. Publishers and re-sellers compete for market share (e.g. CoD isn't $100 because someone will have a used copy that they'll give be on ebay for $40).

Eliminating used games means that games are purely a sellers market, controlled entirely by the publisher. The prices will reflect the maximum that people will pay. Prices will only be kept low by competition between publishers (e.g CoD won't be $100 because people might play other games instead).

I expect there will be steam-style sales, and other measures to improve sales through price differentiation. But this will not (on aggregate) match the existing price-reducing effect of used games. We might get lucky in the short term, since publishers may take the long view and discount the prices to ensure that we accept this new retail model.

It's great for publishers and probably great for developers, who get more money. It's not good for consumers, who will pay more.

But couldn't it also go the other way? That publishers, after eliminating the second hand market, and with a surefire big seller like Halo, or COD, decide to up the price of a new copy from $60 to $70 or $80, and this becomes the new average for a AAA title.

This reminds me of a story I heard about CDs. When they first came out, the music companies argued that the $15 price point for a new disc would only be temporary. Because the fundamental cost of making a CD was so much cheaper than that of a tape, they would eventually be able to lower the costs for everyone with the new technology. By the time their economy of scales in production had kicked in, however, everyone had gotten used to paying $15 for a new album and the music companies had gotten used to fat profits. When iTunes came around and actually shared the new, lower, cost of production with the consumer, the music companies had painted themselves into a corner.

I'm someone who hasn't bought a new console game since Final Fantasy III came out for SNES. Used, always, all the time or wait till it goes on greatest hits, and then clearance. I also have friends who loan me games, and I loan games to them when I'm done with it.

The only reason I'm willing to put up with Steam is the sales and the fact that they're not locking me down to one computer.

Not a chance I will support any of the console makers if this actually happens. This would effectively shutter retailers such as GameStop. While I am not into used game sales (I'm a steam junkie) I do like to go in and browse the merchandise.

It starts with pricing. This is the big elephant in the room when it comes to used console games. Not only does the used game market ensure you can find a game for less than the original retail price soon after release, but it also means you can get a decent proportion of the purchase price back when you've finished a game (or if you just plain don't like it).

This here had me laughing. The author clearly has never sold a game back to the likes of GameStop nor it seems have they ever bought a recent release used.

Quote:

One of the main reasons digital distribution systems like Steam get away with removing the players' ability to resell their games is that they often lower prices on games to a ridiculous degree in frequent sales.

Nope. How does one sell a copy of a game? Used console games are possible because you are selling the physical install media not simply a copy. Not all that doable with digital copies. Steam and other digital game shops sell copies of games. they don't sell physical media which CAN be sold as used.

I'm someone who hasn't bought a new console game since Final Fantasy III came out for SNES. Used, always, all the time or wait till it goes on greatest hits, and then clearance. I also have friends who loan me games, and I loan games to them when I'm done with it.

The only reason I'm willing to put up with Steam is the sales and the fact that they're not locking me down to one computer.

You sound like the exact person they don't care about - someone who never gives the developers any money. From their perspective, why should they care about locking you out?

If they prevent reselling and still maintain high prices then consumers are going to become more cautious. There'll be less impulse buys leading to sales concentrated around the games with exceptional reviews and/or big marketing budgets.

That'll lead publishers to become even more risk averse then they are now, developing games only if they have mass market appeal.

Nobody asks the question here: why are we even still buying discs?? Damn near everyone has the internet and butt-tons of storage. Why don't we have ~Steam on Xbox live or the play station store? Then you don't have to worry about used games on your console. Gamestop and EB Games have limited time left on this earth anyway. Cut out the middle-man, sell your games for $20 less on your own custom marketplace, and everyone is happy (especially that 36-year-old soccer-mom that has to take her 11 year old to gamestop to buy the new pokemon unobtainium).

Want to share games? Do what the Barnes and Noble Nook store does: provide a "lend me" option for a certain amount of time. You can "lend" a friend your game for, say, 2 weeks to where they can download a temp copy to their system that self deletes when the term is over like when you rent a movie from Charter or UVerse.

I'm not a big console gamer, and 99% of the console titles I buy are either used or on clearance sales.

The next console I'm buying will be an Ouya, mostly for the XBMC port, but the games will be nice too.

Now that being said, should the other console makers go ahead with schemes to lockout used games, a lot of publishers will be hit with a rude awakening when they discover just how few of their $60 purchasers will continue buying without the offset of a potential resale, and how few new customers are going to step up from used buyers to new buyers.

Coming from the perspective of a PC gamer who mainly uses steam to buy games, I don't see what the big deal is. I personally would be more inclined to buy a console if games could be purchased right from the console as a download rather than messing w/ DVDs.

My guess is that the next systems will allow two copies of a game in use. One tied to an account and console install, the other from disc. Games on Demand already allows this. Extending that model to physical copies gives physical games feature parity with Games on Demand.

If this was true, why are they not already doing it? Why does a game cost the same on the PS3 store as it does for the physical disk?

Because people will pay it. Remember when the 360 first came out and people were freaking out about $60 games? Now it's commonplace. The one thing that can be said about America: "If you make it, they will pay for it."

Nobody asks the question here: why are we even still buying discs?? Damn near everyone has the internet and butt-tons of storage. Why don't we have ~Steam on Xbox live or the play station store? Then you don't have to worry about used games on your console. Gamestop and EB Games have limited time left on this earth anyway. Cut out the middle-man, sell your games for $20 less on your own custom marketplace, and everyone is happy (especially that 36-year-old soccer-mom that has to take her 11 year old to gamestop to buy the new pokemon unobtainium).

Want to share games? Do what the Barnes and Noble Nook store does: provide a "lend me" option for a certain amount of time. You can "lend" a friend your game for, say, 2 weeks to where they can download a temp copy to their system that self deletes when the term is over like when you rent a movie from Charter or UVerse.

This really isn't difficult.

We are buying disks because not everyone has a reliable solid internet connection where they can download Bluray sized games. and the coming caps would also put the kibosh on your genius idea. Downloading an eBook is not quite the same as downloading a AAA PS3 title. I think it's hilarious that you even tried to equate the two. Games are getting bigger not smaller.

Tiered pricing is definitely a good idea if used games are to be blocked, but I'm really tired of the outrage over this. There is nothing new here. Steam, Origin, Amazon, and other digital PC games retail customers have never been able to trade in or sell their games, and the world hasn't ended, the industry hasn't collapsed.

I'll bet that many if not most of the people who say "I'm angry and I'll never go in for this evil plan!" will be eating crow and lining up to buy their shiny new used-content-restricted consoles the moment the first Call of Duty and Madden games are released for it.